The Full Wiki

Schema (psychology): Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A schema (pl. schemata), in psychology and cognitive science is:

  • A mental structure that represents some aspect of the world.
  • A structured cluster of pre-conceived ideas.
  • An organized pattern of thought or behavior.
  • A specific knowledge structure or cognitive representation of the self.
  • Mental frameworks centering around a specific theme that helps us to organize social information.
  • Structures which organize our knowledge and assumptions about something and are used for interpreting and processing information.

Schema for ourself is called "self schema". Schemata for other people are called "person schema". Schema for roles or occupations are called "role schemata" and schemata for events or situations are called "event schema" (or script).

Schemata influence our attention as we are more likely to notice things that fit into our schema. If something is contradicting our schema it may be encoded or interpreted as an exception or unique. Thus schema are prone to distortion. They influence what we look for in a situation. They have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information. We are inclined to place people in "special or different" category who do not fit our schema rather than look at the problem with our schema. As a result of schemata we might act in a way that makes expectations come true.

Schemata were initially introduced into psychology and education through the work of the British psychologist Sir Frederic Bartlett (1886–1969)[1]. This learning theory views organized knowledge as an elaborate network of abstract mental structures which represent one's understanding of the world. Schema theory was developed by the educational psychologist R. C. Anderson. The term schema was used by Jean Piaget in 1926, so it was not an entirely new concept. Anderson, however, expanded the meaning[1].

People use schemata to organize current knowledge and provide a framework for future understanding. Examples of schemata include Rubric (academic), social schemas, stereotypes, social roles, scripts, worldviews, and archetypes. In Piaget's theory of development, children adopt a series of schemata to understand the world.


History of Schema Theory

Plato elaborates the Greek doctrine of ideal types – such as the perfect circle that exists in the mind but which no one has ever seen. Immanuel Kant further developed the notion and introduced the word "schema." For example, he describes the "dog" schema: a mental pattern which "can delineate the figure of a four-footed animal in a general manner, without limitation to any single determinate figure as experience, or any possible image that I can represent in concreto" (Kant 1781). Early developments of the idea in psychology emerged with the Gestalt psychologists and Piaget. However, it is with the work of Sir Frederic Bartlett[2] (himself drawing on the term as used by the neurologist Sir Henry Head) that the term came to be used in its modern sense. Bartlett's work was neglected in America during the behaviouristic era until its wholesale recapitulation in Ulric Neisser's massively influential Cognitive Psychology (1967).[3] Neisser's work led to the ubiquity of the term in psychology, and its extension to other disciplines, notably the cognitive and computational sciences. Since that time, many other terms have been used as well, including "frame," "scene," and "script,".

Thought using schemata

Schemata are an effective tool for understanding the world. Through the use of schemata, most everyday situations do not require effortful processing— automatic processing is all that is required. People can quickly organize new perceptions into schemata and act effectively without effort. For example, most people have a stairway schema and can apply it to climb staircases they've never seen before.

However, schemata can influence and hamper the uptake of new information (proactive interference), such as when existing stereotypes, giving rise to limited or biased discourses and expectations (prejudices), may lead an individual to 'see' or 'remember' something that has not happened because it is more believable in terms of his/her schema. For example, if a well-dressed businessman draws a knife on a vagrant, the schemata of onlookers may (and often do) lead them to 'remember' the vagrant pulling the knife. Such distortion of memory has been demonstrated. (See Background research below.)

Schemata are interrelated and multiple conflicting schemata can be applied to the same information. Schemata are generally thought to have a level of activation, which can spread among related schemata. Which schema is selected can depend on factors such as current activation, accessibility, and priming.

Accessibility is how easily a schema comes to mind, and is determined by personal experience and expertise. This can be used as a cognitive shortcut; it allows the most common explanation to be chosen for new information.

With priming, a brief imperceptible stimulus temporarily provides enough activation to a schema so that it is used for subsequent ambiguous information. Although this may suggest the possibility of subliminal messages, the effect of priming is so fleeting that it is difficult to detect outside laboratory conditions. Furthermore, the mere exposure effect —which requires consciousness of the stimuli— is far more effective than priming.

Background research

Sufferers of Korsakov's syndrome are unable to form new memories, and must approach every situation as if they had just seen it for the first time. Many sufferers adapt by continually forcing their world into barely-applicable schemata, often to the point of incoherence and self-contradiction.[citation needed]

The original concept of schemata is linked with that of reconstructive memory as proposed and demonstrated in a series of experiments by Bartlett (1932). By presenting participants with information that was unfamiliar to their cultural backgrounds and expectations and then monitoring how they recalled these different items of information (stories, etc.), Bartlett asdfjasdfdfasdf able to establish that individuals' existing schemata and stereotypes influence not only how they interpret 'schema-foreign' new information but also how they recall the information over time. One of his most famous investigations involved asking participants to read a Native American folk tale, "The War of the Ghosts," and recall it several times up to a year later. All the participants transformed the details of the story in such a way that it reflected their cultural norms and expectations, i.e. in line with their schemata. The factors that influenced their recall were:

  • Omission of information that was considered irrelevant to a participant;
  • Transformation of some of the detail, or of the order in which events etc were recalled; a shift of focus and emphasis in terms of what was considered the most important aspects of the tale;
  • Rationalisation: details and aspects of the tale that would not make sense would be 'padded out' and explained in an attempt to render them comprehensible to the individual in question;
  • Cultural shifts: The content and the style of the story were altered in order to appear more coherent and appropriate in terms of the cultural background of the participant.

Bartlett's work was crucially important in demonstrating that long-term memories are neither fixed nor immutable but are constantly being adjusted as our schemata evolve with experience. In a sense it supports the existentialist view that we construct our past and present in a constant process of narrative/discursive adjustment, and that much of what we 'remember' is actually confabulated (adjusted and rationalised) narrative that allows us to think of our past as a continuous and coherent string of events, even though it is probable that large sections of our memory (both episodic and semantic) are irretrievable to our conscious memory at any given time.

Further work on the concept of schemata was conducted by Brewer and Treyens (1981) who demonstrated that the schema-driven expectation of the presence of an object was sometimes sufficient to trigger its erroneous recollection. An experiment was conducted where participants were requested to wait in a room identified as an academic's study and were later asked about the room's contents. A number of the participants recalled having seen books in the study whereas none were present. Brewer and Treyens concluded that the participants' expectations that books are present in academics' studies were enough to prevent their accurate recollection of the scenes.

Modification of schemata

New information that falls within an individual's schema is easily remembered and incorporated into their worldview. However, when new information is perceived that does not fit a schema, many things can happen. The most common reaction is to simply ignore or quickly forget the new information.[citation needed] This can happen on a deep level—frequently an individual does not become conscious of or even perceive the new information. However, when the new information cannot be ignored, existing schemata must be changed.

Assimilation is the reuse of schemata to fit the new information. For example, when an unfamiliar dog is seen, a person will probably just assimilate it into their dog schema. However, if the dog behaves strangely, and in ways that don't seem dog-like, there will be accommodation as a new schema is formed for that particular dog.


Schemata about one's self are considered to be grounded in the present and based on past experiences. Memories, as mentioned, are framed in the light of one's self-conception. There are three major implications of self-schemata. Firstly, information about oneself is processed faster and more efficiently, especially consistent information. Second, one retrieves and remembers information that is relevant to one's self-schema. Third, one will tend to resist information in the environment that is contradictory to one's self-schema. This is also related to self-verification.


  1. ^ Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 
  2. ^ Remembering (1932) C.U.P
  3. ^ Neisser, U: Cognitive Psychology, 1967, New York: Appleton-Crofts
  • Bartlett, F.C. (1932), Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  • Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13, pp207-230

External links

See also


Study guide

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From Wikiversity

A schema is a cognitively-stored, efficient, pre-set way of interpreting information and experiences. However, because schemas tend to be used automatically (unconsciously), they can also lead to perceptual and cognitive errors. Schemas are also learnt, via upringing and enculturation.

See also

  • subst:wplink


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address